Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:51:24 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:51:15 -0500 Received: from e21.nc.us.ibm.com ([32.97.136.227]:48031 "EHLO e21.nc.us.ibm.com") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id ; Wed, 20 Feb 2002 23:51:02 -0500 Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 20:49:55 -0800 From: kravetz@us.ibm.com To: Erich Focht Cc: linux-kernel , Ingo Molnar , Paul Jackson , Matthew Dobson , lse-tech@lists.sourceforge.net Subject: Re: [Lse-tech] [PATCH] O(1) scheduler set_cpus_allowed for non-current tasks Message-ID: <20020220204955.A1474@w-mikek2.des.beaverton.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: ; from efocht@ess.nec.de on Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 20, 2002 at 06:57:05PM +0100, Erich Focht wrote: > Hi, > > this is another attempt to overcome a limitation of the > O(1) scheduler: set_cpus_allowed() can only be called for current > processes. Great! I'm glad someone is looking into this. Didn't look at your patch too closely, but one obvious issue comes to mind. How does the caller of set_cpus_allowed() lock down the specified task so that set_cpus_allowed() can be sure it is still valid? Obviously, this only becomes an issue when you open up the routine to tasks other than 'current' as you have done. Do you want to do task validation within set_cpus_allowed() with the tasklist_lock held? -- Mike - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/